Woman is kept alive to save unborn babySurvival hopes hinge on mom living at least a month more
By Richard Willing
USA TODAY

ARLINGTON, Va. — A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive.

Susan Torres, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), lost consciousness May 7 when an undiagnosed brain tumor caused a stroke while she dined at home. Her husband, Jason Torres, says doctors told him Susan's brain functions have stopped.

Torres, also 26, says he decided to keep Susan on life support when doctors at Virginia Hospital Center here offered him the chance to disconnect the machines after they determined that she would not recover. He says he believes this is what his wife would have wanted.

A hospital spokesperson did not return calls and e-mails to discuss the case.

Against long odds, the baby Susan was carrying when she was stricken appears to be thriving after nearly 21 weeks of gestation, Torres says. If she can stay alive another month, and the cancer stays away from her uterus, the baby could be delivered and have a chance of surviving, he says. The couple has a 2-year-old son, Peter.

“I hate seeing her on those darned machines,” Torres says, “and I hate using her as a husk, a carrying case, because she herself is worth so much more. But Susan really wanted this baby. And she's a very — how should I put this? — a willful lady. That's probably why she's made it this far.”

Since 1977, at least nine comatose women have given birth in the USA, according to research by the University of Connecticut's medical center. Women with aggressive melanoma, the skin cancer that spread to Susan's brain, have borne children in reported cases in the USA, the United Kingdom and Canada, though not all survived.

Susan's doctors tell Torres they know of no cases in which a brain-dead mother with melanoma has delivered a child, he says.

Torres has quit his job as a commercial printing salesman and has moved into Susan's hospital room. He speaks to his wife, making small talk about the family and letting her know what's on his schedule for the day. For Torres, the routine is something solid to grasp in a life he says “was blown to pieces” nearly six weeks ago and continues to be rocked by aftershocks.

Susan, for instance, has had pneumonia recently and is fighting a persistent fever. Torres says the couple's son is staying with grandparents but continues to ask, “Where's Mommy?” Saying “in the hospital” is wearing out as an answer, Torres says. And Torres' relationship with God, whom he has loved since childhood, is showing signs of strain. “Some days,” says Torres, an active Catholic, “I am pretty damned angry with him.”

Torres and Susan, classmates at the University of Dallas, a Catholic liberal arts college, met during their sophomore year in Rome, while on the college's semester abroad program. Torres, large and blocky, says he was looking for a study partner who would help him finish his lessons quickly, so he could “hit the bars” with his rugby playing pals.

Susan, a serious student with a competitive streak of her own, fit the bill. The couple fell for each other quickly, firming up the bond through board games such as Monopoly and Risk.

“She'd dance around the room when she beat me” — and glower if Torres won, he says. It reminded Torres, the third of seven children, of the dynamics of his large family in Manassas, Va. Susan's good looks — blonde and willowy at about 5-foot-10 and 125 pounds — didn't hurt either.

Susan, from a vaguely Protestant background, became a Roman Catholic during their senior year. Hours after she was baptized, he asked her to marry him. “I figured my chances were better if I got her when she was in the mood for saying yes,” he says.

The couple married a year out of college, in May 2002, and welcomed son Peter 13 months later.

Susan, a biology major, liked her job working on malaria vaccines at NIH, Torres says. But she liked being a mother even more and was thrilled to become pregnant again at the beginning of 2005.

Susan had first developed melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, as a teenager in Houston, but had been cancer-free for nearly nine years.

So when Susan began to have headaches and nausea early last month, Torres says, there was no reason to suspect it was anything more than the miseries of early pregnancy. On May 6, the couple made an emergency room visit, where Susan was rehydrated, fed some bland crackers and sent home to rest.

The next night, while he was feeding Susan, “she just stopped,” Torres says. Using techniques he had learned as a lifeguard, Torres restarted his wife's breathing. Emergency medical technicians arrived in minutes. Four hours later, a still-dazed Torres was standing outside an operating room and hearing from a neurosurgeon that cancer had invaded Susan's brain.

A day after, when it was clear Susan had survived surgery, Torres faced an agonizing choice: keeping his wife on life support, with a slim chance of producing a live though perhaps disabled baby, or allowing her to die.

Unspoken, but hovering like a cloud: Picking the first option would be hugely costly. He'd be ground down by unimaginable debt. The couple has health insurance but expects it will cover only a fraction of the cost, currently running at least $7,500 a day, he says.

Torres wavered.

On a high school religion test, he once tackled a similar ethical problem — can you harm an unborn child in order to save its mother? But that was hypothetical. The exercise didn't offer much help here.

He and Susan had never talked about what to do in such circumstances. But Torres remembered that when Susan was pregnant with Peter, the couple had been offered tests to determine whether the child had Down syndrome or other genetic disorders. Susan, Torres recalls, was offended by the implication that if the child was compromised, she should end her pregnancy. She turned down the test.

That memory, and a nurse's advice to “think of what Susan would want,” clarified matters for Torres, he says.

“There's not a glimmer of doubt in my mind that this is what she would have wanted,” he says. “Any chance at all to save the baby, and Susan would have said, ‘Let's go for it.' ”

The road since then has been full of bumps. Susan contracted pneumonia, fought it off, then developed a fever that spiked at 104 degrees. When hospital attendants attempted to move her bed into a lab for tests, Susan's blood pressure fluctuated wildly. Her cancer, so far, seems to have stayed out of her uterus. But doctors give him no guarantees that will continue.

It's been a tough month in other parts of Torres' world. Two of his four grandparents have fallen ill. An uncle, who has cerebral palsy, is in declining health. Peter, who turned 2 on June 3, is beginning to connect his mother's long absence with “the idea that something is wrong,” Torres says.

It's difficult to watch Peter gravitate toward other women Susan's age who cross his path, Torres says. It's at best a mixed blessing to consider that he probably won't remember any of this, including his mother's features and the sound of her voice and the birthday dinner she had to miss.

“How many rocks are they going to throw in your cart before you can't pull it anymore” he says he asks himself. “The answer, apparently, is a lot.”

Torres says he doesn't understand why his family has been singled out for suffering.

His mother, Karen — “she's way, way Catholic” — has told him “when the innocent suffer, great good is let loose in the world, and souls who wouldn't otherwise have gotten in reach heaven.” That's great, Torres says, but these days, his faith requires something more tangible. “I'm like, ‘OK, but can I get a list of those souls, in writing?' ”

Right now, the target is mid-July, when Susan will be about 25 weeks pregnant — 15 weeks short of a full pregnancy. That's the gestation age, doctors tell Torres, where a baby can survive though with a heightened risk of brain damage and vision and developmental problems.

Torres' goal is for Susan and the baby to reach the 30-week mark, when such risks are greatly diminished.

Torres knows that the baby's delivery date, when and if it comes, will be bittersweet. After the baby is born, Susan's body will be anointed in the Catholic tradition, and she'll be allowed to die.

“That could be a little rough,” he says.

“But I'm not focused there yet. The question I keep asking myself is: When this is over, do I get to take a baby home?”

Reply #1 posted 06/16/05 3:31pm

shanti0608

Well, god bless him & his family.
That is so very sad!

If that child survives, it will never know it's mother!

Reply #2 posted 06/16/05 3:57pm

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

Being that she is not in a position to make the decision herself I think it's right for the husband to make the call. And I think the husband would be just as justified to make the decision if he didn't want to turn his wife into a literal incubator. It should be the husbands call on whether or not he's comfortable using his wife's nearly dead body in such a way.

Being that she is not in a position to make the decision herself I think it's right for the husband to make the call. And I think the husband would be just as justified to make the decision if he didn't want to turn his wife into a literal incubator. It should be the husbands call on whether or not he's comfortable using his wife's nearly dead body in such a way.

Reply #5 posted 06/16/05 4:05pm

shellyevon

If this child survives, it will know that it was loved and wanted by both it's parents.I'm sure the father and other family members will do everything they can to make the mother a real factor in the child's life.
My prayers are with them.

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-Dr Seuss

Pain is something to carry, like a radio...You should stand up for your right to feel your pain- Jim Morrison

Reply #6 posted 06/16/05 4:13pm

shellyevon

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Being that she is not in a position to make the decision herself I think it's right for the husband to make the call. And I think the husband would be just as justified to make the decision if he didn't want to turn his wife into a literal incubator. It should be the husbands call on whether or not he's comfortable using his wife's nearly dead body in such a way.

I agree, this is such a personal decision.It IS wonderful that medicine has advanced enough to make this a possibility.
I am in awe of the love between these people. I'm sure that in this case, he is making the decision his wife would have wanted.

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-Dr Seuss

Pain is something to carry, like a radio...You should stand up for your right to feel your pain- Jim Morrison

Reply #7 posted 06/16/05 5:52pm

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

shellyevon said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Being that she is not in a position to make the decision herself I think it's right for the husband to make the call. And I think the husband would be just as justified to make the decision if he didn't want to turn his wife into a literal incubator. It should be the husbands call on whether or not he's comfortable using his wife's nearly dead body in such a way.

I agree, this is such a personal decision.It IS wonderful that medicine has advanced enough to make this a possibility.

The normal course would have resulted in the death of both the mother and the baby. IMO, these are extraordinary methods. I'm not sure how I feel about keeping the woman alive like a monster even though her body is breaking down in the process just to save a baby.

I agree, this is such a personal decision.It IS wonderful that medicine has advanced enough to make this a possibility.

The normal course would have resulted in the death of both the mother and the baby. IMO, these are extraordinary methods. I'm not sure how I feel about keeping the woman alive like a monster even though her body is breaking down in the process just to save a baby.

I don't know how I would feel if I actually had to make ths decision for someone.I think its good that the choice is there.If this man was in my family, I would support his right to make the decision and give support for whatever he decides to do.
Is this any worse than keeping someone alive to harvest their organs for transplantation?

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-Dr Seuss

Pain is something to carry, like a radio...You should stand up for your right to feel your pain- Jim Morrison

Reply #9 posted 06/17/05 8:36am

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

shellyevon said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

The normal course would have resulted in the death of both the mother and the baby. IMO, these are extraordinary methods. I'm not sure how I feel about keeping the woman alive like a monster even though her body is breaking down in the process just to save a baby.

I don't know how I would feel if I actually had to make ths decision for someone.I think its good that the choice is there.If this man was in my family, I would support his right to make the decision and give support for whatever he decides to do.
Is this any worse than keeping someone alive to harvest their organs for transplantation?

I agree, the choice should be there. As for keeping someone alive to harvest their organs, does that happen? Can you give more context to that statement because I don't think I've heard of that before.

I agree, the choice should be there. As for keeping someone alive to harvest their organs, does that happen? Can you give more context to that statement because I don't think I've heard of that before.

This happens all the time. They don't try and keep them alive for weeks or months. But there are times where a "dead" person (willing donor) is kept "alive" on life support for a few hours.

This is necessary sometimes to keep the organs alive and viable until they can first identify a recipient, then so the recipient can be moved closer to the donor or to get the recipient ready to receive the organ/organs.

"Always blessings, never losses......"

Ya te dije....no manches guey!!!!!

I'm a guy!!!!

"....i can open my-eyes "underwater"..there4 i will NOT drown...." - mzkqueen03

Reply #11 posted 06/17/05 9:14am

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

Sowhat said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I agree, the choice should be there. As for keeping someone alive to harvest their organs, does that happen? Can you give more context to that statement because I don't think I've heard of that before.

This happens all the time. They don't try and keep them alive for weeks or months. But there are times where a "dead" person (willing donor) is kept "alive" on life support for a few hours.

This is necessary sometimes to keep the organs alive and viable until they can first identify a recipient, then so the recipient can be moved closer to the donor or to get the recipient ready to receive the organ/organs.

A few hours isn't a few months. From reading the article, the woman would have to be kept alive for 2 more months in order for the baby to grow to the point where there is little to no risk of it's health.

There is a mixture of defilement and innocence in this situation, which makes it all the more dificult to decide what to do. I feel for the family

This happens all the time. They don't try and keep them alive for weeks or months. But there are times where a "dead" person (willing donor) is kept "alive" on life support for a few hours.

This is necessary sometimes to keep the organs alive and viable until they can first identify a recipient, then so the recipient can be moved closer to the donor or to get the recipient ready to receive the organ/organs.

A few hours isn't a few months. From reading the article, the woman would have to be kept alive for 2 more months in order for the baby to grow to the point where there is little to no risk of it's health.

There is a mixture of defilement and innocence in this situation, which makes it all the more dificult to decide what to do. I feel for the family

I was refering to your question about keeping someone alive to preserve their organs for donation.

This situation with keeping the Mom alive to try to save the baby is a completely different situation than an organ donar situation.

"Always blessings, never losses......"

Ya te dije....no manches guey!!!!!

I'm a guy!!!!

"....i can open my-eyes "underwater"..there4 i will NOT drown...." - mzkqueen03

Reply #13 posted 06/17/05 10:01am

Sowhat

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

...There is a mixture of defilement and innocence in this situation...

IMHO it is very clear. Both the Husband and Wife want/wanted this baby. She is not being kept alive indefinately. She is being kept alive to try to save another life. And it is perfectly legal. There doesn't seem to be any conflict or controversy to me.

However, I do feel for the family and their loss and what they are going through now. And I hope the baby does survive and is healthy, that would be a minor miracle to come out of a tragedy.

"Always blessings, never losses......"

Ya te dije....no manches guey!!!!!

I'm a guy!!!!

"....i can open my-eyes "underwater"..there4 i will NOT drown...." - mzkqueen03

Reply #14 posted 06/17/05 10:05am

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

Sowhat said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

...There is a mixture of defilement and innocence in this situation...

IMHO it is very clear. Both the Husband and Wife want/wanted this baby. She is not being kept alive indefinately. She is being kept alive to try to save another life. And it is perfectly legal. There doesn't seem to be any conflict or controversy to me.

However, I do feel for the family and their loss and what they are going through now. And I hope the baby does survive and is healthy, that would be a minor miracle to come out of a tragedy.

It's clear in this case. Other people might not feel right about using their wife that way. The child is being brought into the world motherless. Some people might not want to do that. If the baby lives it will be a good thing but I can't help but feel a bit discomfort at the thought of this woman being forced to continue enduring the breakdown of her body and the ravages of cancer to bring her baby to term. It doesn't feel right to me.

IMHO it is very clear. Both the Husband and Wife want/wanted this baby. She is not being kept alive indefinately. She is being kept alive to try to save another life. And it is perfectly legal. There doesn't seem to be any conflict or controversy to me.

However, I do feel for the family and their loss and what they are going through now. And I hope the baby does survive and is healthy, that would be a minor miracle to come out of a tragedy.

It's clear in this case. Other people might not feel right about using their wife that way. The child is being brought into the world motherless. Some people might not want to do that. If the baby lives it will be a good thing but I can't help but feel a bit discomfort at the thought of this woman being forced to continue enduring the breakdown of her body and the ravages of cancer to bring her baby to term. It doesn't feel right to me.

Your take on this is interesting to me.

How I understand it she is brain dead. She is not feeling anything right now. Kind of like when you argue that a fetus is just a cluster of cells that doesn't know the difference when referring to abortion, why would this be any different (referring to the consciousness level and ability to feel pain and know what is going on)?

Plus by what her Husband said, she would want to try to save this baby. So I don't get the impression she is being "forced" to endure anything. It sounds like if she had any say in the matter, she would choose this course of action.

I do agree with you that it is clear cut in this particular case. In other cases it might not be right. Each situation like this should be looked at on an individual basis with the appropriate decisions being made by the Family with advice from the Doctors involved.

However, I do not believe that this situation is very common. I thought I read an article stating that there are only 7 or so cases like this on record where a pregnant Mother is “dead” but kept alive on life support to try to save a baby.

"Always blessings, never losses......"

Ya te dije....no manches guey!!!!!

I'm a guy!!!!

"....i can open my-eyes "underwater"..there4 i will NOT drown...." - mzkqueen03

Reply #16 posted 06/17/05 10:44am

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

Sowhat said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

It's clear in this case. Other people might not feel right about using their wife that way. The child is being brought into the world motherless. Some people might not want to do that. If the baby lives it will be a good thing but I can't help but feel a bit discomfort at the thought of this woman being forced to continue enduring the breakdown of her body and the ravages of cancer to bring her baby to term. It doesn't feel right to me.

Your take on this is interesting to me.

How I understand it she is brain dead. She is not feeling anything right now. Kind of like when you argue that a fetus is just a cluster of cells that doesn't know the difference when referring to abortion, why would this be any different (referring to the consciousness level and ability to feel pain and know what is going on)?

Plus by what her Husband said, she would want to try to save this baby. So I don't get the impression she is being "forced" to endure anything. It sounds like if she had any say in the matter, she would choose this course of action.

I do agree with you that it is clear cut in this particular case. In other cases it might not be right. Each situation like this should be looked at on an individual basis with the appropriate decisions being made by the Family with advice from the Doctors involved.

However, I do not believe that this situation is very common. I thought I read an article stating that there are only 7 or so cases like this on record where a pregnant Mother is “dead” but kept alive on life support to try to save a baby.

I can't help but feel like this woman is just being used. And they are talking about pulling the plug afterward, why not keep her alive indefinitely or is she only worth something just so long as she has something in her womb? Also the cost is reported at $7500 a day, that will be about half a million dollars for care for a woman that will be let to die once the baby is born. This situation is rife with conflict, maybe not for the father or the family but it would be for me.

I agree that each situation is different and really the thing I would object to is for the government to make it mandatory for someone to force their wife to be used in this manner if that is not what they wanted to do.

But then again, I do believ we should use embryos for stem cell research when it is clear that their ultimate destination is destruction (invetro fertilization), let a good thing come from something bad. I guess I can't say this is all that different. I don't know, it makes me feel very strange to think about using a woman this way.

How I understand it she is brain dead. She is not feeling anything right now. Kind of like when you argue that a fetus is just a cluster of cells that doesn't know the difference when referring to abortion, why would this be any different (referring to the consciousness level and ability to feel pain and know what is going on)?

Plus by what her Husband said, she would want to try to save this baby. So I don't get the impression she is being "forced" to endure anything. It sounds like if she had any say in the matter, she would choose this course of action.

I do agree with you that it is clear cut in this particular case. In other cases it might not be right. Each situation like this should be looked at on an individual basis with the appropriate decisions being made by the Family with advice from the Doctors involved.

However, I do not believe that this situation is very common. I thought I read an article stating that there are only 7 or so cases like this on record where a pregnant Mother is “dead” but kept alive on life support to try to save a baby.

I can't help but feel like this woman is just being used. And they are talking about pulling the plug afterward, why not keep her alive indefinitely or is she only worth something just so long as she has something in her womb? Also the cost is reported at $7500 a day, that will be about half a million dollars for care for a woman that will be let to die once the baby is born. This situation is rife with conflict, maybe not for the father or the family but it would be for me.

I agree that each situation is different and really the thing I would object to is for the government to make it mandatory for someone to force their wife to be used in this manner if that is not what they wanted to do.

But then again, I do believ we should use embryos for stem cell research when it is clear that their ultimate destination is destruction (invetro fertilization), let a good thing come from something bad. I guess I can't say this is all that different. I don't know, it makes me feel very strange to think about using a woman this way.

.
[Edited 6/17/05 10:52am]

I understand where you are coming from on this but I do not believe she is being used. From all indications, it sounds like she would make this exact same choice if was up to her. Plus this is an effort to save a life (the baby).

Besides, she cannot be kept alive indefinately anyway. It sounds like it is going to be a struggle just keeping her alive for two months.

The money is not an issue for me at all, to me you cannot put a price on a life. So if there is any chance what-so-ever in saving this baby, it is worth it.

I agree that the Government should not be involved in something like this unless the family requested it. And I am definately against having it be mandatory to force the family to keep the Mother alive to deliver the baby against their wishes.

"Always blessings, never losses......"

Ya te dije....no manches guey!!!!!

I'm a guy!!!!

"....i can open my-eyes "underwater"..there4 i will NOT drown...." - mzkqueen03

Reply #18 posted 06/17/05 11:30am

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy

Sowhat said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I can't help but feel like this woman is just being used. And they are talking about pulling the plug afterward, why not keep her alive indefinitely or is she only worth something just so long as she has something in her womb? Also the cost is reported at $7500 a day, that will be about half a million dollars for care for a woman that will be let to die once the baby is born. This situation is rife with conflict, maybe not for the father or the family but it would be for me.

I agree that each situation is different and really the thing I would object to is for the government to make it mandatory for someone to force their wife to be used in this manner if that is not what they wanted to do.

But then again, I do believ we should use embryos for stem cell research when it is clear that their ultimate destination is destruction (invetro fertilization), let a good thing come from something bad. I guess I can't say this is all that different. I don't know, it makes me feel very strange to think about using a woman this way.

.
[Edited 6/17/05 10:52am]

I understand where you are coming from on this but I do not believe she is being used. From all indications, it sounds like she would make this exact same choice if was up to her. Plus this is an effort to save a life (the baby).

Besides, she cannot be kept alive indefinately anyway. It sounds like it is going to be a struggle just keeping her alive for two months.

The money is not an issue for me at all, to me you cannot put a price on a life. So if there is any chance what-so-ever in saving this baby, it is worth it.

I agree that the Government should not be involved in something like this unless the family requested it. And I am definately against having it be mandatory to force the family to keep the Mother alive to deliver the baby against their wishes.

I understand where you are coming from on this but I do not believe she is being used. From all indications, it sounds like she would make this exact same choice if was up to her. Plus this is an effort to save a life (the baby).

Besides, she cannot be kept alive indefinately anyway. It sounds like it is going to be a struggle just keeping her alive for two months.

The money is not an issue for me at all, to me you cannot put a price on a life. So if there is any chance what-so-ever in saving this baby, it is worth it.

I agree that the Government should not be involved in something like this unless the family requested it. And I am definately against having it be mandatory to force the family to keep the Mother alive to deliver the baby against their wishes.

Then we agree

How about that .

"Always blessings, never losses......"

Ya te dije....no manches guey!!!!!

I'm a guy!!!!

"....i can open my-eyes "underwater"..there4 i will NOT drown...." - mzkqueen03

Reply #20 posted 06/17/05 5:50pm

psychodelicide

Wow, what a sad story!

RIP, Prince. A legend has left us, and you will be forever missed.

"She probably found her vagina".

Reply #21 posted 06/18/05 3:54am

meow85

While I do support the husband's right to keep his wife on life support in hopes of having the baby survive, the whole scenario paints a very unsettling image in my mind. The woman is essentially just a shell, an incubator for a fetus that may or may not survive.

If I ever end up in a situation like this, I certainly would not want to be kept alive.